The AAAS meeting last weekend was abuzz with events related to the US elections, including a forum where representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns presented their viewpoints of science policy.

I’ve been having trouble figuring out the difference between the two candidates’ positions on any issue, so was eager to learn something from from the source.

Perhaps reflecting the stereotypes of the two campaigns, the Clinton representative, Tom Kalil, presented a more detailed, wonky set of proposals. Kalil was Deputy Assistant to former President Bill Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy. He said Clinton would double the budgets of specific agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. She also would establish a $50 billion “Strategic Energy Fund” in part to promote renewable energy.

Obama’s representiative, Alec Ross, looked about 20 years old and is the exective vice-president of One Economy, a nonprofit corporation that seeks to expand broadband technolgy. Perhaps in keeping with that, he emphasized computer technology advances, such as an expansion of high speed internet access. But he also said Obama planned to double funding of basic research and establish a $150 billion ten-year energy program.

Both candidates proposed programs to create electronic medical records—something that could also aid researchers conducting clinical trials.

I must admit I left still wondering essentially what the difference is between the two candidates. And I also wish someone from the McCain campaign could have been there (his campaign said they had scheduling conflicts). So I’m all for an effort to get the candidates together for a “Science Debate” an idea that is gaining a lot of momentum (although maybe not among the candidates themselves).

What do you think? Is science important enough for it’s own debate? Are you ready to get behind the effort?

https://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php